I apologize if I came across as rude, I did not intend to.
I don't think that the court or HL is taking away a woman's choice to use these
methods of contraception. In fact, the women may well get it cost free through
another source. But, it won't make the Green's violate their sincerely held
I do not believe Tessa Dysart's post actually contests any of the factual
assertions in the NYT article, Guttmacher's studies, or the brief Walter and I
wrote citing those sources (which we took great care to ensure is accurate) --
it impugns the sources generally, without substantiation. I have
Thanks, Alan. Here is a link to the blog's cover page, which should get
you to our piece:
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/rfp/blog
. We're at the top now.
And here is the text:
"Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in the contraceptive mandate cases,
both of us published blog posts tha
Chip,
This link doesn’t work (at least it doesn’t work on my computer.) Is there
another way to access your post. I would like to read it.
Alan
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 11:00 AM
To:
I certainly don't speak for the Greens or the Hahns, but if I held their
religious convictions, I would have a hard time trusting the NY Times and
Guttmacher as reliable sources on this issue-just as I am sure that many people
on this listserve would not trust American's United for Life on the f
With apologies for self-promotion, I suggest that Michael Peabody or others
interested in his question about Hobby Lobby, and discrimination against
LGBT persons or couples, might be interested in this post by Bob Tuttle and
me: http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/rfp/blog/hobby-lobby-in-the-long-r
Here is what the beginning of the NYT article I circulated says about that (and
you can read the entire article at the link). Also I recall an NPR story
within the last year that the labels for Ella and Plan B have been updated in
Europe to say they act by blocking ovulation and are not effecti
On Jul 2, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Tessa Dysart wrote:
> But IUDs do change the uterine lining,
> http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/intrauterine-device-iud-for-birth-control,
> raising the question for some people as to whether they can act to prevent
> implantation, assuming fertilization occ
Yes, it is a statutory issue, and perhaps this is best seen as analogous.
Congress did import to some degree constitutional analysis, which could
strengthen the analogy. Also, a conclusion that a person's religious beliefs
are not sincere could itself raise constitutional issues (though I don't
But IUDs do change the uterine lining,
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/intrauterine-device-iud-for-birth-control,
raising the question for some people as to whether they can act to prevent
implantation, assuming fertilization occurs.
As for Plan B & Ella, the websites for both products c
Michael Peabody asks this: "Certainly a closely-held corporation with 5,000
employees might object
(under this decision I no longer need to qualify this by saying that
the owners do the act since the will of the corporation and owners are
one and the same, right?) to directly providing same-sex cou
On Jul 2, 2014, at 10:17 AM, Tessa Dysart wrote:
> But aren’t the forms of contraception that Hobby Lobby objects to
> specifically marketed as contraception that can prevent implantation? I know
> that Plan B is—whether IUDs prevent implantation is perhaps a little more
> controversial.
Below are some sources that may be of interest regarding what we know about how
these forms of contraception actually work. Clearly some uncertainty, due to
difficulties of testing and great difficulties of proving a negative (that ella
and IUDs never can work post-fertilization). But the prima
But aren't the forms of contraception that Hobby Lobby objects to specifically
marketed as contraception that can prevent implantation? I know that Plan B
is-whether IUDs prevent implantation is perhaps a little more controversial.
For people who believe that life begins at fertilization, a f
I have long thought, as Sandy does, that Naim v. Naim was a disgrace. It is
hardly proof that Brown “did absolutely nothing,” though. Even Gerald
Rosenberg’s flawed analysis of Brown does not go that far. Looking more
closely at Naim, it seems somewhat less outrageous that the Court waited fo
We’re dealing with some pretty icky stuff, here; zygotes, embryos, fetuses,
menstruation, uterine tissues…but if decisions that affect those icky things
are made, we really should be willing to speak about them.
Now what gets me is there’s an exemption for blood transfusions and
vaccines—equa
Thanks Jean - I was trying to avoid getting into a discussion as to
the particulars of the contraception (which is the vehicle for this
particular case) by relying on Justice Alito's statement on page 9,
footnote 7, which dismissed the dispute over what the drugs actually
do (distinguishing between
On Jul 2, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Michael Peabody wrote:
> (and indeed there's no
> scientific consensus as to whether the contraception causes abortion)
Problem with this sentence on two levels: First, contraception is a pretty
broad term, and includes things like abstinence, barriers, hormone the
On Jul 2, 2014, at 7:45 AM, Steven Jamar wrote:
> How about owning stock in companies that make and sell contraceptives? They
> had to sign a contract to do that.
Good question, Steve: Let’s narrow this down a bit—remember, HL only objects
to “morning-after” contraception and IUDs. And yes
Good morning,
In reviewing the Hobby Lobby decision, and particularly its extent, I
can't help but wonder how far this decision goes. While much of the
focus is on the contraceptives themselves, it seems like Hobby Lobby
may be to particular contraceptives as Employment Div. v. Smith was to
peyot
Steve Jamar wrote:
> [1] How about owning stock in companies that
make and sell contraceptives? They had to sign a contract to do that.
>
> [2] The distance between doing the improper thing -- selling, paying
for, using contraceptives -- and buying general health insurance with
coverages man
And in the standard complicity-with-evil analyses, including religious ones,
the degree of connection that's permissible is affected by the perceived
gravity of the harm, which as Marty notes is a religious determination.
Gravity of the harm, for example, is part of the "material cooperation"
Marty,
I would define religious reasoning as reasoning within a
religious discourse or tradition used by religious people to reach
religiously-significant conclusions. Religious reasoning need not be
metaphysical or transcendent or explicitly spiritual. And it can
certainly resemble analogous
How about owning stock in companies that make and sell contraceptives? They
had to sign a contract to do that.
The distance between doing the improper thing — selling, paying for, using
contraceptives — and buying general health insurance with coverages mandated by
the government is attenuat
Thankfully, this issue is now beside the point, but just to repeat, the
premise is mistaken: There are not literally millions of women whose
policies are exempted. Almost all women in the United States are or soon
will be entitled to cost-free contraceptive coverage in their insurance
plan.
On
Perry: I think this is a very important, and contestable, assumption:
"Hobby Lobby is using religious reasoning, not secular reasoning" [in
determining what sort of connection constitutes prohibited "complicity"].
What is the basis for that assumption? In fact, virtually all theological
analysis
I assume that the use of quotes around "constitutional fact" is meant to
highlight that the phrase is used as an analogy in this situation, which is
governed by a statute and not the Constitution. But partly for that reason,
I think the danger of a jury's refusal to follow a proper instruction on
t
27 matches
Mail list logo
